The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Marijuana should be completely legalized

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/21/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 600 times Debate No: 72116
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




I will be Pro.

Marijuana should be legalized without any restrictions other than the ones placed on tobacco or alcohol.

The reasons are:

A) By criminalizing Marijuana, people who are not a danger to society are incarcerated, taking their freedom from them as well as costing the state (and therefore the tax payers) money.

B) Marijuana has tremendous health benefits, on a variety of different conditions including but not limited to: Epilepsy, Multiple Sclerosis, migraines, insomnia, lack of appetite, nausea, and any kind of physical pain.

C) No death has been produced by a marijuana overdose, and no long-term effects have been found if consumed by people with fully developed brains.

D) Even if there was a risk in using marijuana which may not have been discovered yet, that does not justify keeping it illegal, as the state is limiting an adults right to do what they want with their body. You could hurt yourself with pretty much any legal item/substance that you can think of, and that does not mean that every object or substance in existence should be illegal.


I accept this debate. I believe marijuana should not be legal, but I do also disagree with strict punishment of having it. I have no problem with incarcerating the dealer, but just possession should not have jail time. Also remember, you have the burden of proof.

A) you do not have to incarcerate people so harshy for having it. I'm not arguing for the current laws 100%, but for it to not be legalized. This is only valid assuming the laws now are permanent.

B) This is very very flawed. While yes, it can cure physical pain and other things especially while you're high, outside of medical uses there are far more cons than pros. Almost any drug or substance has some pros to it that might decrease chance of some disease, even though the product is still bad.

C) while you cannot overdose on pot, that doesn't mean you can't take too much. Taking over the normal limit could give you paranoia or anxiety issues, which is where the marority of crimes with pot happen.

The second part is extremely untrue. Using just several joints a week, you can cause damage to your brain and psychology. Even the occasional marijuana user, if smoking a couple times a week, affects his or her ability to be motivated and impairs his or her decision making. It has been shown to make new connections in the brain, encouraging further drug use. This is mainly due to the nucleus accumbens, which is the part of the brain that controls pleasure, learning, and again motivation. Pot smokers, many times found to even be people who barley smoke, experience less pleasure from natural rewards, and similarly to other drugs, use pot more to gain more pleasure. It is the ultimate gateway drug, because it encourages and normalizes more drug use, and is culturally seen as harmless.

Also just to not, nothing you smoke into your lungs is going to be good or beneficial, unless it's air or something.

D) well until the 70s or so I would say, everyone smoked and nearly everyone thought it was harmless or good for you even. Now it's a plague on the world, literally killing you through your lungs. And with pot, we have discovered that it is mainly bad for you, and we are only scratching the surface. Just because someone is an adult does not mean they can do whatever they want. Our governments main job (even originally) is to protect the citizens. And I would classify this as protecting the citizens. No, not everything you can hurt yourself with should be illegal, but I mean you could hurt yourself with a tooth brush. High powered military caliber turrets are not available for purchase though, because they don't really provide a benefit to everyone. They are generally bad.
Debate Round No. 1


Okay, round 2.

B) This is not true. The pros have been proven by several scientific studies [1][2][3][4] while there is no proof of negative long-term health implications caused by the substance itself.

C) Even though you may have a panic attack after consuming pot (which happens very rarely), that doesn't make you more likely to commit a crime, this argument has no basis.

It's not necessary to smoke Cannabis to benefit from it. You can use a vaporizer or consume it orally and have the positive health benefits without any smoke going into your lungs. There is no proven correlation between weed and lung cancer or emphysema. [5]

D) Since Cannabis is so safe and has been proven to be the safest psychoactive substance in the planet [6] I see no reason to keep it illegal. Also, as I previously stated, I believe adults should have access to any substance they choose, since they have the right to decide whats best for them, and cannabis isn't a military weapon, it won't put the population in danger.



Many of those sources and "pros" of smoking pot are referring to medical marijuana, which is a different animal than just smoking it.

B) This trumps the last post as even more incorrect. Pot is not good for you, and we are starting to find many flaws in pot usage. [1] [2] [3] [4]

Marijuana is still a drug with over 60 chemicals in it, and in almost every case, drugs are not good for you. The benefits are extremely mild compared to the potential consequences.

C) What? Your argument had no basis. You can't just say something like that when I only stated a fact. Most crimes that are commited by people that are high are commited after taking too much, and pretty much starting to freak out. That has a basis, it's called just saying something non controversial.
Pros point here is not backed up and he just denies sensible information.

I said nothing of lung cancer. All I pointed out was that anything you smoke into your lungs other than natural things is not good for you. Example is being in a coal factory, or walking through a sandstorm. If it gets to your lungs, it won't help you. And even the idea of doing weed for the "Health benefits" is so ridiculous. No one does weed for the positive health benefits. And using medical marijuana as an example is not valid, because it's an entirely differnent situation.

D) Safest drug in the world? How about the skinniest fat guy? All I'm saying is is that saying it's the safest, doesn't mean it's good. And by safe you mean by how lethal it is, which isn't even in the premise of my argument. Sure cannabis isn't a military weapon, but neither is a disease. And the government can exert its constitutional power on that issue. Protecting the public is not limited to bullets.

Debate Round No. 2


B) Sources 2 and 4 cannot be taken seriously because they are biased. When I provided sources, I didn't quote a pro-cannabis magazine, I quoted serious medical studies, which doesn't compare to quoting websites that are dedicated to spreading anti-drug propaganda.

Source 1 is a magazine, which may not be biased but still can't be compared to a medical study when assessing it's veracity.

As for source number 3, I never stated that marihuana wasn't bad for teenagers, I specifically said that it was harmless for people with fully developed brains and should not be sold to minors. I also never said it had no short-term effects, it may affect memory and concentration on a heavy smoker, but that doesn't mean that those effects won't wear off once marihuana is no longer consumed on a regular basis.

As for the change in the structure of the brain, a study has been conducted on January disproving that belief. [1]

Marihuana having 60 chemicals in it is false, cannabis is a plant, and can be grown in your own backyard without using a single chemical, if the government regularizes production and farmers start to use chemicals for more profitable harvesting, then it may contain chemicals, but that wouldn't make it any different from a tomato, or a lettuce.

C) Where is the evidence of people committing more crimes when they are "freaking out" from cannabis consumption? If you are stating that as a fact without any evidence, you have the burden of proof, and I can deny it as long as you don't provide evidence. Panic attacks are a debilitating condition, you wouldn't be able to commit a crime while suffering from a panic attack even if you wanted to.

As I said, you can consume marihuana in a variety of different ways other than smoking it, and regardless of that, you could smoke oregano and hurt your lungs, that doesn't nor shouldn't make it illegal. The THC in the smoke is not what causes the damage.

People do consume marihuana for the health benefits, I'm not denying that it's a minority, but I could very easily provide sources for hundreds of patients that use marihuana for relieving symptoms of illnesses. Medical marihuana is just marihuana, the only difference is that it's prescribed, not the substance, some people use marihuana for medical purposes without getting a prescription.

D) If your premise is protecting the public, my argument is that there is nothing to protect them from when it comes to marihuana, since it has been proven to be harmless and much safer than the majority of the products we consume on a daily basis (I urge you to investigate how many chemicals you are consuming when you eat a stake that you bought at the market).

Not legalizing marihuana is costing taxpayers a lot of money, it's making police focus on harmless pot consumers rather than on actually dangerous people, it's taking a right away from adults that should be able to do what they want with their own body and preventing certain people from using it to improve their well being.



A .gov website? Anti-drug propaganda? You yourself used .gov websites, which should be in relative correlation to each other. And just the fact that you think an anti drug message is propaganda is my problem. Any substance in your body, no matter how fun, should not be given to the public for the main reason that it changes the way you act. Anyway,

B) I accept that the magazine is not a super reliable source, but you are ignoring the entire study soley because a magazine reported on it. Do you think they made it out of thin air? No, they're just reporting info. And if you really think a website created for women is super anti drugs, you should probably look again

The article wasn't even talking about only teenagers. Most of it is about adults, and it just mentions it's also worse for teenagers. Your argument is not valid here. And these tests weren't on people that were high. They were on people that smoked on a consistent basis, and you have no information to claim that the effect wears off. And hopefully on 3 you would've gone to other pages, which subsequently talk about addiction, and while it is not addictive like cocaine is, there are many people dependent on marijuana. You have to understand, anything that deliberately changes your brain and makes new connections is not going to be something you can just brush off.

You're using 1 counter study to disprove my provide articles, but there have been many studies that show it does have an affect on the brain. It is a drug, and it will essentially make your brain want more of it do to the dopamine and all that. And I'm talking consistent use. Someone who uses it once won't be affected or anything.

False. Marijuana does have many chemicals. [1] (pro/con website, not biased). Pot does have chemicals, 400 total, 61 unique to pot.

C) You misunderstand me. I'm trying to explain something that isn't even debatable. If you just smoke or do a little bit of pot, you become relaxed, and that's what drops crime. ALL I'm trying to say is that the marority of marijuana crimes (which are rare compared to other drugs) happen when someone takes more than they should, and the effects start changing. And when you talk about panic attacks, you generalize them. This could be anything from minority freaking out to going insane. A panic attack is a general term.

And yes I know you don't have to smoke it, all I'm adding on is that the most popular way of doing it is not good for your lungs. Not cancer or anything, but something you directly inhale that way isn't good for your respiratory system. [2] It is also not debatable that something you mainly smoke is not going to effect you lungs.

Ok we misunderstood each other. You're talking about people smoking for health benefits when in illness trying to make themselves feel better, whereas I'm saying no one consumes it for the health benefits such as prevention of disease, etc.

D) I know about processed food. I am very against GMOs and think people should be aware of the crap they eat. But this ignorance does not justify allowing pot to be legal. A drug is a drug, and it messes with your body and your mind. And that should not be taken lightly. We have just started examining the surface of pot, and it's likely we'll only find negative consequences. In my opinion, it's a second chance to not popularize something like smoking again, and we need to seriously consider the impact of drugs becoming normalized.

Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by bluesteel 3 years ago
>Futurepresident2048 // Moderation action: Removed<

1 point to Con (S&G). {RFD = Reasons for voting decision: Both sides completely went off topic in the last couple rounds and only argued about each others sources and not the topic. Altogether I didn't very much like this debate for either side so it came down to grammar and for that pro won.}

[*Reason for Removal*] Not specific enough about what grammatical mistakes Con made.
Posted by SquidKing 3 years ago
I still have 2 more debates to do to vote but:
agree with before debate: Con
agree with after the debate: Con
Better conduct: Tied
Better Spelling and Grammar: Con
Convincing arguments: Tied
Reliable sources: Pro
No votes have been placed for this debate.